8/12/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 099

[No. L-8477. May 31, 1956]

THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as Guardian of the

Property of the minor, MARIANO L. BERNARDO, petitioner, vs.
SOCORRO ROLDAN, FRANCISCO HERMOSO, FIDEL C.
RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ, respondents.

GUARDIANS AND WARD; PURCHASE OF WARD's

PROPERTY BY GUARDIAN OR THROUGH INTERMEDIARY.—As
Guardianship is a trust of the highest order, the trustee cannot ke allowed
to have any inducement to neglect his ward's interest; and whenever the
guardian acquires the ward's property through an intermediary, he
violates the provision of Article 1459 of the Civil Code and such
transaction and .soibsequent ones emanating therefrom shall be annulled.

PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Cesar R. Canonizado and Enrique A. Santos for petitioner.
Nicodemus L. Dasig for respondents.

BENGZON, J.:

As guardian of the property of the minor Mariano L. Bernardo, the

Philippine Trust Company filed in the Manila court of first instance
a complaint to annul two contracts regarding 17 parcels of land: (a)
sale thereof by Socorro Roldan, as guardian of said minor, to Fidel
C. Ramos; and (6) sale thereof by Fidel C. Ramos to Socorro Roldan
personally. The complaint likewise sought to annul a conveyance of
four out of the said seventeen parcels by Socorro Roldan to Emilio
Cruz.
The action rests on the proposition that the first two sales were in
reality a sale by the guardian to herself—

394

394 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Roldan, et al.

therefore, null and void under Article 1459 of the Civil Code. As to
the third conveyance, it is also ineffective, because Socorro Roldan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e30d5969cd18b43f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
8/12/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 099

had acquired no valid title to convey to Cruz.

The material facts of the case are not complicated. These 17
parcels located in Guiguinto, Bulacan, were part of the properties
inherited by Mariano L. Bernardo from his father, Marcelo
Bernardo, deceased. In view of his minority, guardianship
proceedings were instituted, wherein Socorro Roldan was appointed
his guardian. She was the surviving spouse of Marcelo Bernardo,
and the steprnother of said Mariano L. Bernardo.
On July 27, 1947, Socorro Roldan filed in said guardianship
proceedings (Special Proceeding 2485, Manila), a motion asking for
authority to sell as guardian the 17 parcels for the sum of P14,700 to
Dr. Fidel C. Ramos, the purpose of the sale being allegedly to invest
the money in a residential house, which the minor desired to have on
Tindalo Street, Manila. The motion was granted.
On August 5, 1947 Socorro Roldan, as guardian, executed the
proper deed of sale m favor of her brother-in-law Dr. Fidel C.
Ramos (Exhibit A-l); and on August 12, 1947 she asked for, and
obtained, judicial confirmation of the sale. On August 13, 1947, Dr.
Fidel C. Ramos executed in favor of Socorro Roldan, personally, a
deed of conveyance covering the same seventeen parcels, for the
sum of P15,000 (Exhibit A-2). And on October 21, 1947 Socorro
Roldan sold four parcels out of the seventeen to Emilio Cruz for
P3,000, reserving to herself the right to repurchase (Exhibit A-3).
The Philippine Trust Company replaced Socorro Roldan as
guardian, on August 10, 1948. And this litigation, started two
months later, seeks to undo what the previous guardian had done.
The step-mother in effect, sold to herself, the properties of her ward,
contends the plaintiff, and the sale should be annulled because it
violates Article 1459 of the Civil Code prohibiting the guardian

395

VOL. 99, MAY 31, 1956 395

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Roldan, et al.

from purchasing "either in person or through the mediation of

another" the property of her ward.
The court of first instance, following our decision in Rodriguez
vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. 13 held the article was not controlling, because
there was no proof that Fidel C. Ramos was a mere intermediary or
that the latter had previously agreed with Socorro Roldan to buy the
parcels for her benefit.
However, taking the former guardian at her word—she swore she
had repurchased the lands from Dr. Fidel C, Ramos to preserve it
and to give her protege opportunity to redeem—the court rendered
judgment upholding the contracts but allowing the minor to
repurchase all the parcels by paying P15,000, within one year.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e30d5969cd18b43f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
8/12/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 099

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, adding that the

minor knew the particulars of, and approved the transaction, and that
"only clear and positive evidence of fraud or bad faith, and not mere
insinuations and inferences will overcome the presumptions that a
sale was concluded in all good faith for value".
At first glance the resolutions of both courts accomplished
substantial justice: the minor recovers his properties. But if the
conveyances are annulled as prayed for, the minor will obtain a
better deal: he receives all the fruits of the lands from the year 1947
(Article 1303 Civil Code) and will return P14,700, not P15,000.
To our minds the first two traftsactions herein described couldn't
be in a better juridical situation than if this guardian had purchased
the seventeen parcels on the day following the sale to Dr. Ramos.
Now, if she was willing to pay Fl 5,000 why did she sell the parcels
for less? In one day (or actually one week) the price could not have
risen so suddenly. Obviousty when, seeking approval of the sale she
represented the price to be the best obtainable in the market, she was
not entirely truthful. This is one phase to consider.
Again, supposing she knew the parcels were actually worth
P17,000; then she agreed to sell them to Dr. Ramos

396

396 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Roldan, et al.

at P14,700; and knowing the realty's value she offered him the next
day P15,000 or P15,500, and got it. Will there be any doubt that she
was recreant to her guardianship, and that her acquisition should be
nullified? Even without proof that she had connived with Dr. Ranios.
Remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust of the
highest order, and the trustee cannot be allowed to have any
inducement to neglect his ward's interest and in line with the court's
1
suspicion whenever the guardian acquires the ward's property we
have no hesitation to declare that in this case, in the eyes of the law,
Socorro Roldan took by purchase her ward's parcels thru Dr. Ramos,
and that Article 1459 of the Civil Code applies.
She acted it may be true without malice; there may have been no
previous agreement between her and Dr. Ramos to the effect that the
latter would buy the lands for her. But the stubborn fact remains that
she acquired her protege's properties, through her brother-in-law.
That she planned to get them for herself at the time of selling them
to Dr Ramos, may be deduced from the very short time between the
two sales (one week), The temptation which naturally besets a
guardian so circumstanced, necessitates the annulment of the
transaction, even if no actual collusion is proved (so hard to prove)
between such guardian and the intermediate purchaser.
2
This would
uphold a sound principle of equity and justice.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e30d5969cd18b43f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
8/12/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 099

We are aware of course that in Rodriguez vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. p.

13 wherein the guardian Mactal sold in January 1926 the property of
her ward to Silverio Chioco, and in March 1928 she bought it from
Chioco, this Court said:

"In order to bring the sale in this case within the part of Article 1459, quoted
above, it is essential that the proof submitted establish some agreement
between Silverio Chioco and Trinidad Mactal to the effect that Chioco
should buy the property for the

_______________

1 25 Am. Jur. pp. 128, 130; Daniel vs. Tolon, 53 Okla. 666, 4 A. L. R. 704.
2 cf. Severino vs. Severino, 44 Phil. 343. "No fraud in fact need be shown".

397

VOL. 99, MAY 31, 1956 397

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Roldcm, et al.

benefit of Mactal. If there was no such agreement, either express or implied,

then the sale cannot be set aside. * * *. (Page 16; Italics supplied.)"

However, the underlined portion was not intended to establish a

general principle of law applicable to all subsequent litigations. It
merely meant that the subsequant purchase by Mactal could not bc
annulled in that particular case because there was no proof of a
previous agreement between Chioco and her. The court then
considered such proof necessary to establish that the two sales were
actually part of one scheme—guardian getting the ward's property
through another person—because two years had elapsed between
the sales. Such period of time was sufficient to dispel the natural
suspicion of the guardian's motives or actions. In the case at bar,
however, only one week had elapsed. And if we were technical, we
could say, only one day had elapsed from the judicial approval of
the sale (Augwst 12), to the purchase by the guardian (Aug. 13).
Attempting to prove that the transaction was beneficial to the
minor, appellee's attorney alleges that the money (P14,700) invested
in the house on Tindalo Street produced for him rentals of ?2,400
yearly; whereas the parcels of land3
yielded to his step-mother only
an average of Pl,522 per year. The argument would carry some
weight if that4 house had been built out of the purchase price of
P14,700 only. One thing is certain: the calculation does not include
the price of the lot on which the house was erected. Estimating such
lot at Pl 4,700 only, (ordinarily the city lot is more valuable than the
building) the result is that the price paid for the seventeen parcels
gave the minor an income of only Pl,200 a year, whereas the harvest

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e30d5969cd18b43f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
8/12/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 099

from the seventeen parcels netted his step-mother a yearly profit of

Pl,522.00. The minor was thus on the losing end.

_______________

3 Appellee's brief, p. 20.

4 The contract with the builder called for F16,500.00; and Roldan said its total cost
amounted to P18,720.00.

398

398 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aricheta vs. Judge, CFI, Pampanga, et al.

Hence, from both the legal and equitable standpoints these three
sales should not be sustained: the first two for violation of article
1459 of thv3 Civil Code; and the third because Socorro Roldan
could pass no title to Emilio Cruz. The annulment carries witK il
(Article 1303 Civil Code) the obligation of Socorro Roldan to return
the 17 parcels together with their fruits and the duty of the minor,
thi/ough his guardian to repay P14,700 with legal interest.
Judgment is therefore rendered:
a. Annulling the three contracts of sale in question; 6. declaring
the minor as the owner of the seventeen parcels of land, with, the
obligation to return to Socorro Roldan the price of P14,700 with
legal interest f rom August 12, 1947; c. Ordering Socorro Roldan
and Emilio Cruz to deliver said parcels of land to the minor; d.
Requiring Socorro Roldan to pay him beginning with 1947 the
fruits, which her attorney admits, amounted to Fl,522 a year; c.
Authorizing the minor to deliver directly to Emilio Cruz, out of the
price of P14,7QO above mentioned, the sum of P3,000; and f.
charging appellees with the costs. So ordered.

Pards, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,

Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., eoncur.

Decision reversed.

______________

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e30d5969cd18b43f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
8/12/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 099

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e30d5969cd18b43f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6